I was at an Aqua meeting today and someone had a concept rendering of the Arquitectonica building "C" (?), of the North elevation, just by chance on the table and I saw that the total height of the building (ground level entrance to rooftop) was listed as 1030'-4".
The floor number was too small to see from my perspective but that height number was very clear.

Sounds great! Of course, where are they measuring from? This is a problem for all buildings in the New Eastside because of the multi-level streets. If they're measuring from an Upper Wacker entrance, 921' seems reasonable. If they are measuring from ground level, then the height would be quite a bit higher (but not 110 feet!).

I was at an Aqua meeting today and someone had a concept rendering of the Arquitectonica building "C" (?), of the North elevation, just by chance on the table and I saw that the total height of the building (ground level entrance to rooftop) was listed as 1030'-4".
The floor number was too small to see from my perspective but that height number was very clear.

But that's a financial/economical function, not an architectural function. There's a difference.

Not to rehash an old argument, but, the hole is actually an architectural element as well. Trying to find a clever way around the site's low FAR was only half the story. It would have been next to impossible for them to sell the east units below the 11th floor because they faced (separated by only 10-15') directly into the adjacent parking garage. So, it was actually a pretty good solution given that no architect with any sort of a conscious could ever build a residential unit in such poor conditions.

__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!